Summary
noting that although a witness's experience and education may embrace the subject in question in a general way, the subject may be so specialized that the witness will not be qualified to testify. "Thus, every doctor has a general knowledge of the human body. But an ophthalmologist, for example, is not qualified to testify concerning the causes and treatment of heart disease"
Summary of this case from Flanagan v. LabeOpinion
Argued October 24, 1985.
Decided November 21, 1985.
Appeal No. 101 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1985, from Order of Superior Court, 336 Pa. Super. 22, 485 A.2d 408 (1984), en banc entered November 27, 1984, at Nos. 2813 and 3148 Philadelphia 1981, Vacating Order of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Trial Division, Civil Section, entered October 30, 1981, at No. 1948, November Term, 1977, and Remanding Case for New Trial.
Gustine J. Pelagatti, Philadelphia, James D. McDonald, Jr., Erie, amicus — for Pa. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
Bernard J. Smolens, Sherry A. Swirsky, Philadelphia, for Sears, Roebuck Co.
Alan H. Ross, Philadelphia, for Nicholas Mallis.
Gary B. Gilman, Albert Grube, Deputy Attys. Gen., for Dept. of Transp.
Timothy P. Ryan, Victor E. Schwartz, Kathryn Kelly, Washington, D.C., amicus — for Product Liability Advisory Council — Pro Hac Vice Granted.
William H. Crabtree, Edward P. Good, Detroit, Mich., amicus — for Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
ORDER
Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.
LARSEN and ZAPPALA, JJ., dissent.